Background: This is the first study to consider feedback on the specialty of emergency medicine (EM) given by other hospital specialties.
Method: A questionnaire was sent to 100 randomly selected consultants and specialist registrars from other specialties in a district general hospital in Northern England. The response rate was 67%.
Results: 80% of respondents felt that the official term for the specialty should be “accident and emergency medicine”. Resuscitation and major trauma were given the highest importance scores (>9/10) when evaluating the purpose of EM and minor injuries were given an intermediate importance score (6.5/10). Respondents advocated “rapid rule out” of acute medical problems by the emergency department (75%) and “any trained individual” carrying out ultrasound (72%) or stroke thrombolysis (59%) in the emergency department. Rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia exclusively by emergency physicians was unpopular (3%). Respondents were least satisfied with the study department’s documentation, availability of senior staff 24 h/day and the availability of equipment and drugs. Polyclinics and closure of smaller emergency department were unpopular future proposals, while 70% advocated a revival of traditional out-of-hours general practice services.
Conclusion: The perceived purpose, strengths and weaknesses of EM provide a focus for training and development, while opinion on new practices indicates areas where resistance to change may be met. The results can contribute to decision-making for emergency departments and for EM as it strives to adapt to its role in the modern NHS. Further similar studies are planned on a wider scale.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Additional data are published online only at http://emj.bmj.com/content/vol26/issue10
Funding Supported by Rotherham Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Audit Department.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.